AuthorTopic: "Right To Bear Arms" (Read 62055 times)

I guess you have never seen what a cranked up paintball gun can do, you can break bones with them when you crank them up high enough (which is illegal, it is easy to do though, at my undergrad, the area was fairly dangerous, so car's get stolen on a regular basis, frats have an easy time deterring potential robbers with them, they don't need to go buy real guns, they do plenty enough damage with something like a paintball gun, using real guns when there are less deadly options is just common sense). Rubber bullets are much worse, they are solid and not designed to break and disperse the damage when they hit someone, I was just suggesting them to give some middle ground, someone would still have a very good chance of getting killed by one, I just wanted to suggest the option to you bloodthirsty types.

You should have a little more respect for human life, I assure you breaking a bunch of bones in their bodies would take them down. And it isn't like any of you are speaking from real experience, now are you, unless you did go to school in a dangerous area, in which case, you wouldn't have been using a real gun in the first place, because that is insane.[/quote]

I'm confused. I'm supposed to respect the life of someone who is trying to take mine? I've never heard that one before. I really don't know what to say about it. Also, I didn't want to bring it up and sound like a huge tool, but since you mentioned it, yes I have been shot at and (in one instance) shot at an intruder. My intention is not to, by any means, flaunt this, because I think it is a sad that things come to this. But I think it gives me the credibility to express my views on the issue.

Simply put, we should search mental records for gun buyers. I see nothing wrong with a 3 day waiting period to help prevent passion crimes. We should crack down on illegal gun sales. And if gun dealer makes a mistake and sells to the wrong person, they should get shut-down.

But I beg to differ on the paintball and rubber bullet ideas. Wear a flak jacket and your basically immune to them because it's hard to hit somebody in the face or arm - they move around a bit more than the torso. Even with a flak jacket a .44 will hurt a ton, probably won't knock you down, but man it'll hurt. (the movies are full of hogwash, getting shot is unlikely to knock you down from the impact alone).

Simply put, we should search mental records for gun buyers. I see nothing wrong with a 3 day waiting period to help prevent passion crimes. We should crack down on illegal gun sales. And if gun dealer makes a mistake and sells to the wrong person, they should get shut-down.

But I beg to differ on the paintball and rubber bullet ideas. Wear a flak jacket and your basically immune to them because it's hard to hit somebody in the face or arm - they move around a bit more than the torso. Even with a flak jacket a .44 will hurt a ton, probably won't knock you down, but man it'll hurt. (the movies are full of hogwash, getting shot is unlikely to knock you down from the impact alone).

Where do you draw the line for mental records? Does extreme ADHD equal being disqualified? How about a social disorder that is easily treatable with medication?

Further, your comment about staying up after being tagged by a .44 magnum round is way off. After the inception of the 9mm Luger Parabellum, police and US Armed Forces found that the lack of stopping power was its biggest problem. If you had someone jacked up on a drug such as PCP, or even adrenaline, a non-fatal wound from a 9mm was never enough to actually put them down. This is why police forces/Coast Guard are almost all moving to the .40 S&W or .357 SIG. These are pistol rounds that will knock a person down. When you move into the realm of the .45 ACP or .44 Mag, it is incredible stopping power, though equally incredible kickback. While the movies are wrong in that a round won't send you flying back, I would love to see someone with Kevlar on and stay standing after a torso shot from any of the higher caliber pistol.

And lastly, in regard to Tortfesor's post, the point of having a Glock 17/19 (the popular 9mm models) is useful as the answer to problems like Cho. Criminal elements will always be able to obtain firearms, illegal or not. It seems absurd to not allow normal citizens (which I agree should be more regulated) the ability to defend against that element. I'm hardly a Red State 2nd Amendment True Believer, but there are a lot of bad people out there. Having a pistol or shotgun for defense purposes is not simply in the province of Montana living militia-members. If you were ever in a situation in which basic social services broke down such as after Katrina, when your life/life of loved ones was at stake, I have a feeling your rubber bullets line would go out the window. Obviously Cho was someone that makes this nation's access to guns somewhat suspect. However, as I think it was noted above, this was one disturbed and crazy a-hole. If not a Glock, why not a pipebomb or something equally destructive?

has anyone mentioned that the constitution gives us a right to overthrow the government. How can this be accomplished without firearms. I watched v for vendetta and trust me as a combat vet. if a bunch of rioting citizens tried to take over the country without guns they would just get mowed down. Ask the chinese how hard it is to overthrow a government with strict gun laws.

has anyone mentioned that the constitution gives us a right to overthrow the government. How can this be accomplished without firearms. I watched v for vendetta and trust me as a combat vet. if a bunch of rioting citizens tried to take over the country without guns they would just get mowed down. Ask the chinese how hard it is to overthrow a government with strict gun laws.

Really? Where does it say in the Constitution that we can over throw the government? I must have missed that part, mixed in somewhere about putting down rebellions.

This so called right to overthrow is found in the Declaration, which the Court sometimes looks too. We "overthrow" the government by election, not by arms.

has anyone mentioned that the constitution gives us a right to overthrow the government. How can this be accomplished without firearms. I watched v for vendetta and trust me as a combat vet. if a bunch of rioting citizens tried to take over the country without guns they would just get mowed down. Ask the chinese how hard it is to overthrow a government with strict gun laws.

Really? Where does it say in the Constitution that we can over throw the government? I must have missed that part, mixed in somewhere about putting down rebellions.

This so called right to overthrow is found in the Declaration, which the Court sometimes looks too. We "overthrow" the government by election, not by arms.

When in the course of human events...

I'm pretty sure the government "overthrow" to which the Declaration referred was to be accomplished with arms, not votes. I agree that the Declaration gives us a right to overthrow our government, but the scope of that right is rather abstract. It would be hypocritical of our constitution to come into existence by overthrow, yet deny to us the right to do it again if the further "course of human events" again calls for it.

has anyone mentioned that the constitution gives us a right to overthrow the government. How can this be accomplished without firearms. I watched v for vendetta and trust me as a combat vet. if a bunch of rioting citizens tried to take over the country without guns they would just get mowed down. Ask the chinese how hard it is to overthrow a government with strict gun laws.

Really? Where does it say in the Constitution that we can over throw the government? I must have missed that part, mixed in somewhere about putting down rebellions.

This so called right to overthrow is found in the Declaration, which the Court sometimes looks too. We "overthrow" the government by election, not by arms.

When in the course of human events...

I'm pretty sure the government "overthrow" to which the Declaration referred was to be accomplished with arms, not votes. I agree that the Declaration gives us a right to overthrow our government, but the scope of that right is rather abstract. It would be hypocritical of our constitution to come into existence by overthrow, yet deny to us the right to do it again if the further "course of human events" again calls for it.

So what do you say of Abraham Lincoln's actions during the 1860s? Was the United States government in need of overthrowing then? This argument is absurd. You right wingers love to talk about strict construction and originalism. But when it doesn't serve your purposes, you become just as activist as any liberal judge.

I'm pretty sure the government "overthrow" to which the Declaration referred was to be accomplished with arms, not votes. I agree that the Declaration gives us a right to overthrow our government, but the scope of that right is rather abstract. It would be hypocritical of our constitution to come into existence by overthrow, yet deny to us the right to do it again if the further "course of human events" again calls for it.

So what do you say of Abraham Lincoln's actions during the 1860s? Was the United States government in need of overthrowing then? This argument is absurd. You right wingers love to talk about strict construction and originalism. But when it doesn't serve your purposes, you become just as activist as any liberal judge. [/quote]

A goverment also has an implicit right to sustain and defend itself. The Civil War is the perfect example of these two co-existing rights being exercised at the same time. That fact may be absurd, but its truth is not. And the approach I've just taken is is that of a "strict constructionist." It would be truly radical to propose that the American revolutionaries felt that any government was beyond being dismantled by its people. In fact, the spirit of the Constitution is precisely the opposite.

As for the "right winger" comment, you obviously confuse political conservatism with judicial conservatism. One can be a bleeding heart social and political liberal while mainaining the utmost respect for the purely passive and interpretive duty of federal courts.

Handguns are an important part of hunting. They do have a purpose other than killing people and target practice.

Rubber bullets are not the answer because traditional bullets are easily made. If you can't buy them, then you make your own. Plus, they would still make traditional bullets for hunting purposes.

As far as the mental health issue goes. Cho was ordered into a 72 hour evaluation. An evaluation does not mean you are insane, incompetent, etc. It means the Judge has reason to believe at the time that you need to be observed. So even if you open up mental health records to searches a 72 hour evaluation is not likely to be an indicator unless the psychiatrist found a sustained mental illness during that eval. And the problem is what mental illnesses are considered not gun worthy?

This is just another case of over-reaction by everyone as soon as something bad happens. The fact of the matter is that it's not your normal law abiding citizen that kills people.It's the criminal that kills people. Banning guns wouldn't solve our violent crime problem. The real criminals would just find another way to kill people.

How many people are stabbed to death every year? Are we going to go out and ban knives? How many people die in car crashes each year? I guess we should outlaw automobiles too now. (oh and by the way, there's nowhere in the Constitution that affords us "God Given Rights" to knives and automobiles)

Lets have background checks for everyone that buys a set of kitchen knives from now on too. Further, lets make a mandatory week waiting period for farmers to buy fertilizer. (because we all know you can make bombs with fertilizer) We've got to make sure that "the fertilizer isn't getting into the hands of psychos" Get real.

As much as everyone likes to female dog, we do have a constitutional right to bear arms. Where are all the ACLU nazi's now? I believe a couple have posted against firearms in this post - just as I said before the ACLU is very selective about the rights they want to enforce.